MAYSARAH PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. THR. ITS MANAGING DIR.ASHUTOSH CHANDRAversusARUN DAMJI GADA SOLE PROP. NOVA NIRMAN MIGAM AND DIVYA DEVELOPMENTS

                                                                6-IA-7004-2026 COPY.DOCX



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7004 OF 2026
                                 IN
                APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 22153 OF 2026


Maysarah Properties Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Managing
DIR Ashotosh Chandra                                         ...Applicant(s)

       Versus

Arun Damji Gada Sole Prop. Nova Nirman
Nigam and Divya Developments                        ...Respondent(s)
                                 ______
Mr. Shlok Paresh a/w Mr.Shivam Singh Deshmukh, Mr. Dwarkesh Chavda, Ms.
Yamini Barat and Mr. Himanshu Agrawal, Advocates for the Applicant.
Ms. Usha S. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Ms. Kausar B. a/w Ms. Riya Thakkar a/w Mr. Sanjay Maji i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia,
Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Mohammedriyaz Khan i/b J. Ansari, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Ms. Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4-BMC.
                                     _______

                    CORAM:                 AARTI SATHE, J.

                    DATE:                  16th SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C.


1.         Heard learned counsel for the parties on this Interim Application which

is filed praying for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal from Order

bearing St. No. 22153 of 2026.

2.         There is no written opposition filed to this Application. Learned

counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 although have



                                  Page 1 of 2
                                                                  6-IA-7004-2026 COPY.DOCX



orally opposed this Application vehemently, they would not dispute the well settled

position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the

principles to be followed on condonation of the delay and more particularly they

would not dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case, as set out in

the memo of the Application, the Applicant ought not to suffer or be rendered

remediless in pursuing the Appeal From Order.

3.       In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the Application

and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in my opinion, the

reasons as set out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient

cause shown by the Applicant in regard to the delay in filing the Application. It is

hence in the interest of justice that the delay is condoned.

4.       The Interim Application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (A).

5.       Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.




                                                  (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                    Page 2 of 2
Tiwari